DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US 2009/0317882 A1) in view of Kracke et al (“Robust and biocompatible catalysts for efficient hydrogen-driven microbial electrosynthesis”) and Henderson et al (US 2022/0087286 A1).
Cheng et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0048], [0055], [0060], [0095], and [0100]) a process comprising applying a voltage of 0.7 to 1.0 V from a power source to a microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) for a period of time, wherein the MEC comprised a cathode, an anode comprising a biofilm on a carbon support (graphite fiber brush anode), a separator between the cathode and the anode, and an electrolyte present in the cathode chamber comprising carbon dioxide and a methanogenic bacteria, such as Methanococcus maripaludis. Cheng et al further teach (see paragraph [0096]) using a buffered nutrient solution also comprising nitrogen (as ammonium chloride) and phosphorous (as monosodium or disodium phosphate (NaH2PO4 or Na2HPO4).
Cheng et al do not teach (1) the cathode comprising a hydrogen evolution reaction material (i.e. catalyst) or (2) the Methanococcus bacteria being used for the production of a single cell protein.
Regarding (1), Kracke et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1b, right hand column of page 3) using a cathode comprising a hydrogen evolution reaction catalytic material (CoP, MoS2, NiMo) to enhance the rate of methane production from microorganisms present near the cathode, such as Methanococcus maripaludis. Synergy existed between the M. maripaludis and the hydrogen evolution catalyst to increase the rate of methane production by the microorganism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method of Cheng et al according to the teachings of Kracke et al by using a cathode comprising a hydrogen evolution reaction catalytic material instead of a carbon cathode for the purpose of enhancing the rate of methane production by the microorganisms.
Regarding (2), Henderson et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0022], [0070]) that protein compositions for food were known that were produced from microbial cells (i.e. “single-cell protein”) as claimed, and recognized that M. maripaludis was a suitable microbe for the production of such protein food.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the M. maripaludis biomass produced in the process of Cheng et al as a source of protein food (i.e. “single-cell protein” as claimed) according to the suggestion of Henderson et al because using the remaining biomass of the bacteria after the process of Cheng et al as protein food would have reduced the waste generated by the process.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, all of Cheng et al, Kracke et al and Henderson et al suggest the microbe being Methanococcus maripaludis.
Regarding claim 3, Cheng et al teach (see paragraph [0064]) conducting a step of capturing the methane gas produced by the process.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng et al teach (see paragraph [0004]) that the recovered product (i.e. SCP as claimed) were “total cellular protein” and would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have comprised all essential amino acids.
Regarding claim 6, Cheng et al teach (see paragraph [0088]) conducting the microbial electrosynthesis at 10-40°C.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng et al teach (see abstract) providing CO2 to the electrolyte in the cathode chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Cheng et al teach (see paragraph [0080]) using an industrial wastewaters as the biodegradable substrate for the biofilm on the anode.
Regarding claim 9, Cheng et al teach (see paragraph [0096]) that the nitrogen and phosphorous content of the electrolyte was provided by a supplemental addition of a chemical to the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 10, Cheng et al teach (see paragraph [0089]) using a pH in the range of 5-8.5.
Regarding claim 11, Cheng et al teach (see paragraph [0052]) providing a plurality of anodes and cathodes in a stacked formation.
Regarding claim 12, Cheng et al fail to teach the current density of the current applied by the power source. However, Kracke et al teach (see fig. 5 caption) operating the microbial electrolysis cell at a current density of 1mA/cm2 (10 A/m2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the current density taught by Kracke et al in the process of Cheng et al because Kracke et al teach that the current density was suitable for supporting M. maripaludis growth and methane generation.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Cheng et al teach (see paragraph [0090]) operating in either batch or continuous mode.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng et al fail to teach the retention time of the electrolyte. However, it would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art to perform routine experimentation to determine a suitable retention time to optimize the rate of protein production.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Henderson et al teach (see abstract, paragraph [0034]) separating the protein from the liquid in which the cells were contained. This separation would have been performed downstream from the microbial electrolysis cell of Cheng et al to avoid complications in the structure of the microbial electrolysis cell to include the separating (filtering) structure.
Regarding claim 20, Cheng et al teach (see paragraph [0096]) providing the anode by using an existing anode from an MEC reactor, such that the steps of preparing the anode inherently included inoculating the anode with a biofilm of the exoelectrogenic microbes, placing a start-up medium in the MEC, operating the MEC to grow the biofilm on the anode. Cheng et al teach then replacing the medium from the first MEC with the electrolyte and inoculating the electrolyte with the M. maripaludis bacteria.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US 2009/0317882 A1) in view of Kracke et al (“Robust and biocompatible catalysts for efficient hydrogen-driven microbial electrosynthesis”) and Henderson et al (US 2022/0087286 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joshi et al (US 2012/0175268 A1).
Cheng et al and Kracke et al do not teach the cathode comprising a nickel mesh.
Joshi et al teach (see abstract, paragraph [0042]) that a nickel mesh was effective for the electrocatalytic evolution of hydrogen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the nickel mesh in place of one of the cathodes suggested by Kracke et al because Joshi et al teach that the nickel mesh was effective for the electrocatalytic evolution of hydrogen.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US 2009/0317882 A1) in view of Kracke et al (“Robust and biocompatible catalysts for efficient hydrogen-driven microbial electrosynthesis”), Henderson et al (US 2022/0087286 A1), and Joshi et al (US 2012/0175268 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Negem et al (“Electroplated Ni-Cu nanocrystalline alloys and their electrocatalytic activity for hydrogen generation using alkaline solutions”).
Joshi et al teach the nickel mesh being solely nickel, thus failing to teach the mesh being a nickel-copper alloy of the claimed weight percentages.
Negem et al teach (see abstract, Table 1, Table 2) that nickel-copper alloys possessed lower cathodic hydrogen overpotentials as compared to nickel. Negem et al suggest a Ni-49Cu (49at% Cu or 50.9 wt% Cu) has the best overpotential, but also discloses that Ni-27Cu or Ni-26Cu (28.6 wt% Cu or 27.6 wt% Cu, respectively) also possessed good overpotential for hydrogen evolution compared to pure nickel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted a Ni-Cu alloy having a copper content of about 28wt% as taught by Negem et al for the pure nickel mesh of Joshi et al because Negem et al teach that the Ni-Cu alloy possessed low cathodic hydrogen overpotentials (i.e. the alloy was more catalytic for the hydrogen evolution reaction).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights